• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Repeal Doesn't Increase the Deficit

    When now-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) was sworn in as Speaker on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8.67 trillion. By the time Pelosi surrendered the gavel to Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) yesterday, the national debt stood at $14.01 trillion. At $5.34 trillion, that means Speaker Pelosi added more than $1 trillion in debt per year during her tenure as Speaker. And yet she has the audacity to tell reporters Tuesday: “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

    Only someone so out of touch with reality that they could claim that “deficit reduction” has been their “highest priority” while simultaneously adding more than $1 trillion a year to the debt could possibly claim that repealing Obamacare would add to the debt. But that is exactly what Pelosi wants us to believe. Also on Tuesday she claimed that repealing Obamacare would do “very serious violence to the national debt and deficit.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

    While the CBO did produce a report projecting that Obamacare could produce $124 billion of savings over its first 10 years, no honest and intelligent person believes that that score will ever become reality. Not even the CBO. CBO Director Doug Elmendorf wrote: “CBO’s cost estimate noted that the legislation maintains and puts into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.” Elmendorf then goes on to identify a number of specific Obamacare policies, such as arbitrary reductions in the growth rate for Medicare spending, that anyone who follows health care policy knows will be impossible to actually implement.

    Speaking of arbitrary reductions in the growth rate for Medicare spending, another way Speaker Pelosi gamed the CBO to get a fantasy deficit reduction number was to ignore how Medicare pays doctors altogether. Early versions of Obamacare included a permanent “doc fix” that prevented automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare. But when Democrats couldn’t get the score to come out right with the doc fix included, they simply solved that problem by cutting it out of the legislation entirely. They have since been forced to pass two extensions of the doc fix in separate pieces of legislation. It’s super easy to claim that your health care bill doesn’t add to the deficit if you don’t bother to include payment for doctors in it.

    And there are other aspects of Obamacare ‘cost controls’ that were not identified as politically suspect by CBO and are already rapidly crumbling. Not only is the individual mandate to buy health insurance being gravely challenged in the courts, but support among Democrats is also evaporating, particularly among those who have to face voters in 2012. Senator Claire McCaskill (D–MO), who is up for reelection next year, came out in favor of scrapping Obamacare’s individual mandate yesterday, telling MSNBC “There’s other ways we can get people into the pool—I hope—other than a mandate, and we need to look at that.”

    Nobody expects President Barack Obama to sign a bill that would repeal his signature accomplishment as president. But that does not mean that a House repeal of Obamacare would be a waste of time. It would be a strong signal to the nation that the new House is serious about honest deficit reduction, bureaucracy reduction and putting control of health care back into the hands of American families.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    84 Responses to Morning Bell: Repeal Doesn't Increase the Deficit

    1. Don Aaronson chicago says:

      Repealing Obamacare would be a great idea if, and only if, the repealing party had an alternative proposal. Unfortunately the Rebuplicans do not seem to have taken that essential next step. While I oppose this particular piece of legislation there are some worthy part. We do have to provide some insurance coverage for the 47 million uninsured and not break the bank in doing so. If the Republicans can come up with a plan to do this they will be able to govern for years. I think it's put up or shut up time.

    2. Jim Richard, Sylvani says:

      The Bush recession had begun and two wars continued to inflate deficit, not Pelosi.

    3. Mark, Austin, TX says:

      I believe Republicans will not repeal, rather try to make lemonade with manure. Repeal is the best option, don't get me wrong…there is just too much investment by private companies into this tyranny to go back. Also, the insurance companies wrote this stuff…similar to the banks after the Federal Reserve Act howling against it, when in reality they were the ones who benefit from the ability to access the ability to create money out of thin air…its all so criminal, and I pray our politicians return to the restraints of the US Constitution.

    4. Mark, Austin, TX says:

      Oh, and this "debt" of $14T does not include the other unfunded liabilities like SS, Medicare, etc…

      The truth is this debt is impossible to pay back, can tax or cut enough. This is the fruit of all the lies we've been told/sold and bought with interest…

    5. Jeanne Stotler,Woodb says:

      Since Congress, (the House) hold the puse strings, defunding will altimately cripple Obama Care, the Supreme Court could do the rest. Making Doctors take less money only means they will give less care this means more will be using the ER's ans so it goes. Many are already limiting the amount of Medicaid patients they will see and are now considering not accepting new Medicare patients unless the patient carries a GOOD supplement policy. My supplement will increase anywhere from $15. to $85 a month, medicare part B went up and Pelosi says cost will go down, I want to know what she smokes.

    6. Timothy Maning Hilo says:

      I am all for the repeal of Obama Care, but with all this going on in the Congress, I have yet to hear of eliminating the boarders for Insurance Companies to sell across State lines. If we are to support Capatilism, then why is it not supported fully and truthfully- You know as well as anyone Heritage, "you're the best at giving us the News" that this must also be part of the deal. I would love to hear your viewpoint on this.

    7. Pete, Carson City, N says:

      I've got a question for Princess Pelosi…"Are you serious?" "Are you serious?"

    8. Harley Spoon, Austin says:

      Your premise is sophomoric & so ridiculously far from the facts as to be laughable. Pelosi was not the only member of the government in her time as speaker. There were, for most of her time as Speaker of the House, over 41 Republican members of the US Senate who stood in the way of everything coming from the House and they used the obstructionist rules of the Senate to see that each and every Democratic Party initiative was perverted.

      You fail to mention that before Pelosi became Speaker (1) an unpaid for set of very expensive wars of choice were in place, (2) an unpaid for and very expensive prescription drug program was in place (which has given the American taxpayer a $19.5 trillion liability thus far), (3) an unpaid for and very expensive tax cut for the wealthy was in place. All of those things and more (How many spending bills produced by the Republican congresses did Bush veto?) were perpetrated on the American people by a Republican President and a Republican congress and were the major causes of deficit spending in Pelosi's time as Speaker.

      For the Heritage Foundation to call itself a "think tank" is ludicrous if such articles as the above are any indication of the "thought" that goes into what the so-called "thinkers" at the Heritage Foundation write.

      The Heritage Foundation–like the FOX TEAPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA NETWORK, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh and the other ilk (Coulter, Levin, Malkin, Reagan, et al.) you people run with–is so far from being an actual "think tank" that one would have to a raving lunatic to take anything any of you write seriously…except as a serious, purposeful and pervasive danger to the thing most necessary in a democratic-republic; and informed electorate.

    9. George Colgrove, VA says:

      "Nobody expects President Barack Obama to sign a bill that would repeal his signature accomplishment as president. But that does not mean that a House repeal of Obamacare would be a waste of time. It would be a strong signal to the nation that the new House is serious about ## honest deficit reduction, bureaucracy reduction ## and putting control of health care back into the hands of American families." – Conn Carroll

      This is true – very true. The congress needs to send the bill up to the White House every week and force Obama and the democrats to defend it.

    10. Jeff, Florida says:

      Ex-Speaker Pelosi has always appeared to be delusional or totally out of touch with the real world. I really do believe she is mentally ill.

    11. Richard Cancemi,Arli says:

      Saying that Obamacare is Obama's "singular accomplishment" is like saying a man who robs a bank, earned the money he stole!

    12. Lloyd Scallan (New O says:

      Hey Jim Richard, ever hear of 9/11? Ever hear of the other terrorist attacks in the U.S. such as Fort Hood and the Underware bomber? What about Time Square?That why we are at war. Why did Pelosi (as well as almost ever other Dem) voted to go war? But more importent why is Obama continuing to pour billions of our tax dollars in the war in Afghanistan that has absolutely no reasonable expection of a winning victory. Yea, you're right, It's all Bush's fault. Just keep repeating that Dem talking point while brain-dead Dems such as Pelosi keep making rediculos statement that only those like you and your ilk would even consider to be factual, to cover her's and Obama's guilt in increasing out national dept by $5.34 trillions.

    13. Mike, New Port Riche says:

      Let us get Obamacare repelled then focus on the real problem frivolus law suits. We tried to do that but were prevented from doing so the first go round. I do not know why democrates can not see the truth right in front of their faces, they added trillions to the deficet and did it without our (the People) permission. Please let our Medical system remain the best in the world and let our doctors be doctors.

    14. john arizona says:

      While it is comforting that we don't have to listen to more of Ms Pelosi's fabrications and outright lies, the problem is what to do with the mess she left us with. Republicans have their hands full of the garbage left by the loons!

      Jim Richard: The statute of limitations on blaming Bush has run out. Get to the heart of the matter! It's the wild spending of the Democrats that have put us over the $14 trillion mark!

    15. Bernard Mulvaney Fos says:

      I look forward to this daily commentary on the DC scene. May I suggest more columns on strategies for Reps to make Congress a functioning entity. The adolescent behaviors on both sides is frustrating to those of us who are independents. Maybe the approach should be a coalition of adult members from both parties who could fashion legislation to restore our credibility on both the national and international scene. And stop this constant pounding on 2012–we need to get something done in '11.

    16. Nate, Gaithersburg, says:

      @ Jim, http://www.foundry.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-

      The deficit was started by President Bush. However, President Obama has only made that situation multiples worse.

      @ Don

      No we do not have to provide health-care to the uninsured or under-insured.

      Health-care is not a federally guaranteed right. At best, this should be an issue for the state government to decide. In order for our political system to work, people need to understand that at the highest level, they are citizens of their particular states…you are identified, accounted for and represented by your state and not the federal government. This is a state decision, not the federal government's. The only reason no state provides free health-care is because it is not affordable to do so, the federal government is only capable of even considering such a move due to the fact that it has a free and open printing press, money means nothing to the federal government.

      At the end of the day, the federal government is only responsible for providing for national defense, free and open commerce between the states and for determining just cause in matters between multiple states in the union and nothing else.

    17. Yellowbird says:

      I believe our country has many problems today but, one of the greatest reasons does not ever get mentioned. How do the grossly incompetent and corrupt Obama's, Pelosi's, Rangel's, etc. get elected and continute to get re-elected year after year. Appears we will wallow in this swamp until we correct the real problems.

    18. Bill Lee, ArkLaTex a says:

      The idea someone stated is good. Do not just repeal Obamacare but offer an alternative to it. Look at the most important goals of the Bill. Prexisting conditions and major long term illiness coverage. These are the areas that the public are concerned with. But you do not have to wreck the whole health care system to take care of these problems. Medicade has been in place for years and the those who are poor can use this.

    19. Mary............WI says:

      The House needs to go for repealing if not just to remind the American people how Pelosi, Reid and Obama destroyed the best medical care in the world. I believe they will present their plan again in the coming weeks.

    20. J. Guidry, Battlefie says:

      I agree with George of Colgrove, Va. Keep sending a repeal bill for Obummercare up to the White House every week for the next two years. And, keep score. Do that for all the crap the progressives have pushed down our throats over the last two years. Start defunding everything they have passed which is not in the best interests of this nation. Including the defunding of the alphabet soup of agencies which are trying to regulate as opposed to letting congress legislate. Find a way to rescind the Obummer's "executive orders" at the same time. Come 2012, present the scorecard to the American people and watch the fireworks. The LSM will refuse to report all the abuses by the socialists in an effort to pass more crap, but we can weather that with the scorecard and the alternative media. Which most folks, by that time, will realize is the only reliable source for what is going on in D.C.

    21. Pam says:

      I have come 2 realize just how vicious Democrates are & have no commen sense thinking process. They are the people that think if it looks good on paper. & in the opinion it has to work. NOT. I hope & pray that repeal CAN happen. No more garbage about illegals etc etc. Let's take care of those that truly R. Americans for all it has stood for all these years. Send illegals home. Build a big wall around this country. Protect .& serve this country! keep the tea party going so every1 in this country gets their heads out of their buns & make every1 who goes 2 Washington 4 US. Accountable!!

    22. Al from Fl says:

      It is important to put the politicians on record right up front regarding Obamacare. After that, the republicans will address healthcare issues. The question is what is the best way to go about it. The problem with Obamacare is that the bill was not written to be good legislation, rather to get votes to pass. It has so many things in it that will cause unintended consequences that taking it on page by page will be a challenge. Hopefully, the republicans will address spending and the deficit and do so without worrying about what the MSM and the dems will say. The media will trash the republicans' efforts no matter what the good or bad of a bill is.

    23. Diane, NJ says:

      When reading between the lines, I read that the federal government planned to pay back the deficit with the mandated healthcare payments. And because that seems to be the case, who were they going to deny treatment? The elderly sure don't deserve a kick into the grave. These people paid their dues. Those who procreate at the tax payers expense? These people are a drain on our society while providing a vote for the progressive party. I wonder…. just how creepy is the obama administration? The solution, of course, is for every able body to partake in the work force, pay taxes, pay for personal healthcare, pay for their own food and housing,,,,,,but that seems to be too difficult to implement.

    24. Hermes Cohen Liberty says:

      Everything less than REPEAL is unworthy of the American People's Trust. Obamacare is a hidden WEAPON AGAINST AMERICA AND AMERICAN, handled by inside and out Enemies. REPEAL is the only rationally correct thing to do, knowing what all of this is about. So if some do not know, please continue to shed light on the hidden motives of our Enemies IN and Out.

    25. Kevin H, college par says:

      Got to love the far right and heritage. They point to CBO numbers over and over as the official score keeper in Congress….that is until CBO determines what the far right wants to do will add huge amounts to the deficit.

      Also, impossible to say the House is serious about deficits when they get rid of pay-go and create cut-go. They are taking us back right back to what they did a decade ago. They now allow themselves to add to the deficit as much as they wish to cut taxes even further or create an even more generous estate tax.

      In two days of a Republican House, we see how much it was just talk about dealing with deficits and see that they will add more to the deficit and debts than any congress in history.

      Obama should be thankful to have these two years for Americans to see what Republicans are all about.

    26. Jill, California says:

      Repealing the law can only help the economy.

      Ever since the law was passed, Blue Shield has been raising my premiums dramatically at every opportunity. So I'm struggling more financially than I was before … struggling as a result of everything this Obama administration has been doing for the past two years. (I'd almost be better off dropping my insurance and letting the government take care of me if I get hurt or sick.)

      And it all rolls downhill. I've had to cut my spending dramatically, which hurts the economy and jobs. One can't look at the financial impact in a vacuum. Just because there are financial impacts at the federal level if the law is repealed doesn't mean it won't be offset in other ways, such as letting taxpayers keep more of their money so they can spend it in ways that helps the economy.

    27. Carol Trauth says:

      If this legislation is so great – why are there so many companies receiving waivers – what about the unions and most important why did our legislatures deline to particpate – especially those that are 65 and over – they maintain full benefits – and we pay the bill.

      Being an unemployes Insurance Broker – I do agree that something has to be done – but federal mandates only increase costs – there should be a system where the companies offer the bare minimum of coverage and everyone then picks and chooses what best fits their needs and their pocketbook

    28. Brian says:

      Turning back the decades old progressive fetish for statism starts with disposal of Obamacare.

      The continuance of treating this dysfunctional obsession with an omniscient state commences with rolling back spending to 2008 levels at least, perhaps further.

      There is no question the myth of a persistent state presence in our lives as beneficial has been busted.

      While I cannot see the myriad bureaucracies in place now disappearing over-night, I can see them dissolving in that pursuit with the reduction and elimination of the flow of our incomes into these seemingly bottomless sink holes of officialdom.

    29. laurie, Hawaii says:

      Don, in Chicago……have you ever noticed….it is better to not do something than to do something that is very destructive.

      About the former (thank, God) speaker, considering the enormous alochol consumption used on her private jets and the disillusionary statements she is making it has occurred to me, (Alcoholics really believe what they are saying, that is why they are so convincing in their amazing lies, illogical statements). …that perhaps there is a substance problem there. Otherwise, how on earth could someone come out with the statements she has done. ("We need to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it."). We "pay as you go"…….right, the Chinese must love the former speaker. We just get deeper at their mercy with this nightmare. One trillion dollars (to get one trillion minutes in your lifetime you would need to be 19,000 years old). So, 14 trillion….what a mess!! We must not buy these Poison Lollipop stories. If we don't stop this spending NOW, we will all crash down in every way very quickly. WAKE UP!! All America!!

    30. jlo, Montana says:

      Don Aaronson nailed it when he wrote, "Repealing Obamacare would be a great idea if, and only if, the repealing party had an alternative proposal." Obamacare is a monstrosity and should be scrapped. However, repeal does not negate the need for serious healthcare reform in America. Healthcare costs are totally out of control and need to be brought down through fair, open market competition for our business. A quagmire of government regulation has created system of protectionism for the healthcare industry that hurts consumers. We need serious tort reform, the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, the ability to purchase prescription drugs anywhere in the world, and a system that allows and encourages consumers to comparison shop for insurance, medical care, and prescription drugs. Are the conservatives going the step up to the plate and offer a real alternative to Obamacare?

    31. Tom Georgia says:

      I have heard and read much commentary about the 'cost' controls and 'cost' reductions that are written into Obamacare. I have seen nothing that I would consider a legitimate method for controlling or reducing 'COSTS'! I have heard and read of several–some fantastical–ways that PRICES are to be controlled but nary a mention of anything that appears to me would control or reduce costs.

      There is a reason for that, I believe. "Price" is a number that is created by mankind and which can thus be changed by mankind by just changing the number. "Cost" is an amount that is a product of nature and as such the laws of nature are the primary controlling principles for cost. It is not possible for governments to control COSTS directly by decree. To control or reduce costs it is first necessary to take the time to understand the processes and systems within which costs are created and to understand the laws of nature that are the controlling natural principles for the processes and systems. Principles such as the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of inertia and motion.

      BUT THERE IS A WAY THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN CONTROL AND/OR REDUCE DELIVERY SYSTEM COSTS AND THAT WAY IS RIGHT UNDER THE NOSES OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF INEPTITUDE THAT WE CALL GOVERNMENTS.

      The best way for our governments to control and/or reduce the costs that are embedded in the prices that are coming out of the healthcare and medical treatment delivery system(s) would be for all governments at all levels to reduce the amounts of taxes, fees and fines, etc., of all kinds that they are collecting from the institutions that make up the system and to reduce the amounts of all personal and household taxes that employees of the system are paying using money received as salaries from the system's incoming revenue stream.

      All of the taxes of all kinds that are paid to any government using money that was received via the system income revenue streams become a part of the costs that are embedded in the prices that are being paid by healthcare consumers or by the consumers' third party payers. The cost of Medicare payroll taxes as well as the cost of Social Security payroll taxes, income taxes, etc., for instance, are parts of the cost that's embedded in the price that is paid by Medicare reimbursement.

      Costs of government flow out from The Treasury in exchange for money being paid into The Treasure to then flow through the healthcare delivery system to become embedded in the prices that are being paid by Medicare and Medicaid to then flow back to The Treasury to be flowed on outward in exchange for money that is being paid in taxes or to the credit markets in exchange for money that "investors" are paying for Treasury debt issues.

      The result is a cost adding, money subtracting feed back loop that can continue running only for as long as additional money from somewhere can be injected into the loop and added to the money flow in order to be able to keep the "naturally" increasing amount of cost in motion.

      MESSAGE TO ALL GOVERNMENTS: If you are unwilling to put up, then just shut up and get out of the way.

      If you take the time to back off and look at the systemic big picture it becomes evident that our governments, collectively, with their taxing policies are and for a long time have been the primary root cause of each other's financial

      "challenges."

      We, the people and OUR economy and OUR country, of course, are caught in the middle.

      A nation's economy–if there is one–is of the people and by the people. The only question left for governments to decide is whether the nation's economy is also for the people or whether the nation's economy as well as the nation's people will be used for the purposes of the nation's government.

      Are we there yet?

    32. RogerC says:

      Last report was that 222 corporations (and Unions) received waivers. Probably more now. Has the CBO taken this into account? If McCaskill's suggestion of dropping the individual mandates, the deficit will go out of sight. The Republicans and Democrats need to do a thorough study of what is agreeable to to the majority of the citizens of America, one that is affordable, and replace the Obamacare Bill. There is a short list of those that have come up in the past, but was totally ignored by the Democrats (many of whom are currently unemployed). But this is good news, Pelosi said that unemployment insurance was the best stimulous of all the programs. I want my $782B back.

    33. Mark, Austin, TX says:

      So dare I say both sides (Dem & Repub) are responsible for the deficits and therefore robbing the American people blind…what do we do about that, now that the left/right paradigm is shattered? I mean when you have the red team saying one thing and going with a constant advancing agenda and the blue team likewise…what then? That is where we are today in my opinion. It is frustrating to see so many pointing fingers at one party or another, while both parties are advancing the same overall agenda…we need to as "the people" unite under "Liberty".

    34. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    35. Pat Boone, Columbia says:

      I don't want to be disrespectful to Don (First Comment) but when he said, "We do have to provide some insurance coverage for the 47 million uninsured and not break the bank in doing so" he shows a modicum of ignorance. First, we don't have to do anything. Second, the 47 million number is either his fabrication or one copied from the dems in one of their famous talking point charades. There are millions of illegals in that number, millions of kids who don't want to buy insurance in that number and millions of rich who pay as they go and don't want to buy a policy. Putting the "Not Break Break the Bank" on the Republicans the first day of their tenure is disingenuous. The dems were content to pander and break the bank and the country. The Republicans (by Don's way of thinking) are guilty (of what?) wanting to save the country from this venue of bankruptcy. Give them at least a week before complaining.

    36. Pingback: Department of Offense » Repeal Doesn’t Increase the Deficit

    37. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Repeal of Obamacare will save money. Period, the end, fin, finito.

    38. Joe, US says:

      If I recall correctly, the mantra adopted for election was defict cutting and job creation. I fail to see how either of these objects are achieved without some intellectually dishonest argument by repealing a health care bill designed to spread the burden of health care more fairly and reduce waste.

    39. Kevin H, college par says:

      Last year, Senator Grassley said 'CBO is God' when pointing to numbers CBO gave that helped the conservative case.

      Suddenly, when the non-partisan offical scorekeeper of Congress shows how republcians are looking to add a trillion to our debt, they said CBO doesn;t know what it's talking about.

      First week into the Republican congress and we're back to where we were in 2001 – Repubs trying to add a trillion to the debt in lezss than one week in power. Welcome back to 2001!!!

    40. Joe, US says:

      @Blair

      "Repeal of Obamacare will save money. "

      I assume you have some other numbers that the CBO is not aware of, since the CBO estimated the cost of repeal at $230B over 10 years.

    41. Scott Carver says:

      In response to Harley Spoon from Texas. I can see that you are a Democrat Liberal who has swallowed Obama, Pelosi, and Reed's Liberal Fantasy world hook, line, and sinker. Allow me to respond to each and every one of your points, in order.

      The "unfunded wars" would have been over long ago, if not for the Democratic Congress's insistence on "Rules of Engagement" that deny our Military the ability to create a decisive victory. If the new Congress will untie the hands of the Military, I predict that the Taliban and any other terrorsistic groups currenty opposing us, would disappear into hiding, or would out right surrender. Why, because they know that without the "rules of engagement" that limit our response, we would anihilate them completely.

      The unfunded "perscription drug program". What's your beef with this? It gives assistance to people who would not otherwise be able to afford their perscription drugs. Are you suggesting that we should allow people who have a legitimate need for perscription drugs to go without, simply because they cannot afford them. Sounds kind of anti-liberal to me.

      The tax cut for the wealthy. The 'HOLY GRAIL" for the Liberals. Whenever you can't find anything else to say, you bring up the "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy'. Let me ask you this. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? It sure as hell ain't the Government. It isn't the people on welfare. It isn't the banks, the unions, or walstreet. It's the Business Owners. Business owners who invest their profits back into their companies to make them grow. The more money they have to reinvest, the more their companies grow and the more people they can employ. The more people who are employed means a larger tax payer base, which means more revenue for the Government. More revenue for the governement means more money for the Liberal's precious intitlement programs.

      In my opinion, we should give massive tax breaks to any company that wants to employ American Citizens, on American Soil; and tax the hell out of companies that want to ship their operations Overseas. We need to incentivise Companies to bring industry back to US soil. We need to incentivise the production of Domestic Natural Resources, and minimize our depence on other countries. We need to rebuild our military into the Premier Military force is once was, and stop coddling these countries that hate us. We need to once again become the leaders and example for the world. The United States is the greatest nation of the face of the planet. We must, we can, and we will be the guiding example, if people like you would pull your head out of your arse and start using some common sense. We need people who think before they react, instead of just reacting on feelings.

      I welcome any comments.

    42. Ray Winslow, Laughli says:

      The House read the Constition, great!

      But no one was there to listen!

      I expect more.

    43. Sandy, UT says:

      I have a great math teacher. I'll bet he could tutor the dimwits in congress especially Pelosi. She's just beYOND help.

    44. Atlantic City NJ says:

      Besotted Nancy Pelosi is in an hallucinatory state of mind. For Republicans to take her or her "followers" sriously enough to "compromise" is a huge mistake. Before all else, verify the eligibility of the Fraud in the White House.

    45. Richard, houston tx says:

      I don't know if your article was intended as a joke or you are really that stupid. 70% to 75% of our national debt occurred while Republicans were in the White House. Reagan $1.8 trillion. Bush I $1.4 trillion, and Bush 2 the worst President in history added almost $5 trillion. Since Republicans can't add, that is $8.2 trillion. Interest on the Republican debt alone pays China $25 billion or more to improve their military, 80% to 90% of the current debt is due SOLELY to the incompetence of the Republicans and their DELIBERATE excesses causing the nation to plunge into the greatest economic downturn since the Depression. I n. I do not see ANY Republicans telling Obama to balance the budget, they are ALL insisting that deficits remain at their highest levels ever. For 40 years I have been a Rebulican but NEVER again, never, ever. The Republicans are the single greatest threat to our nation past, present and future.

    46. Stephani, Georgia says:

      Don Aaronson – It is not up to me, my tax dollars, or the federal government to pay for the 47 million uninsured in this country. The federal government is not our mother or father; we are supposed to be responsible for ourselves.

      Harley Spoon – "an unpaid for and very expensive tax cut for the wealthy" is simply the cry of someone who is not thinking for himself and does not understand the true nature of the federal republic in which we live. We work for the money we make, even wealthy people have to work at it too, and that money belongs to the person who earns it. The federal government takes it by force to fund its operations. This argument of unpaid for tax cuts is saying that all money belongs to the government and I am simply working to fund the government and its programs. Instead of using the unpaid for tax cuts argument, let us first cut back on government programs, phase out all entitlement programs, and replace the current tax system with an easier system that is more equitable to the lower and middle classes, such as the FairTax.

    47. Pingback: COACHEP » Blog Archive » News about Nancy Pelosi is a failure issue #63

    48. Carol,AZ says:

      Kill the Bill and CUT the fraud out of the existing program.

      Why doens't anyone approach health care from the known point of view of inflated over charges, and huge pay-outs that has illegal written all over it.

      Thanks Brendan for the website ref.

    49. Mike, Chicago says:

      Repeal obamacare Now!

    50. Mike Duvall, Harriso says:

      Thirty three years of engineering, and even more watching public policy and economic history has shown me what works and what doesn't, and the fog has cleared. Ms. Pelosi is a destructive caricature, a clown, who knows she's fighting against common sense truth, rational thinking, and wisdom, but will never admit it for fear of losing face (although a face worth losing). Argueing with her and her fake smile is like trying to fold a roadmap in a windstorm, so don't do it. Just continue to defang her and restrict the media spotlights that fuel her ego, and make it look like she doesn't matter anymore and let her just fade away. It will be delicious torture to see as she feels her power draining and being put out to pasture where she belongs. Repeal Obamacare and replace it with something more financially and bureaucratically paletable and readable to those having to implement and manage it. No hurry. Just steady progress is what I need and expect.

    51. Abigail Adams says:

      REPEAL of Obamacare is the only right thing to do. REPEAL. Not adjust, not change. Nothing less that REPEAL. Our actions are not determined by what we think "they" will do. We do what is right. period. REPEAL. And HF is right– it will surely demonstrate to the nation that we have a new House in business for us.

    52. Pingback: » Morning Bell: Repeal Doesn’t Increase the Deficit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. MySquawk

    53. George Colgrove, VA says:

      Tom Georgia,

      You got it right. We have tried everything to solve these probles – except one. That would be for the federal government to get out of the way. I wonder how different healthcare would look then. All of us might actually be able to afford it! Remember the days of a $20 or even a $10 dollar doctor checkup visit for the kids (with no insurance?)

      The feds have sold us a bad bill of good and we need to return it and ask for our sanity back!

    54. Daniel says:

      Here's a few of the things republican­s want to deny American's in return for the most expensive health care on the planet:

      -No lifetime or annual limits.

      -Prohibitio­­­n on rescission­­­s.

      -Coverage of preventive health services.

      -Extension of dependent coverage.

      -Developmen­­­t and utilizatio­­­n of uniform explanatio­­­n of coverage documents and standardiz­­­ed definition­­­s

      -Prohibitio­­­n of discrimina­­­tion based on salary.

      -Bringing down the cost of health care coverage.

      -Appeals process.

      -Ensuring that consumers get value for their dollars.

      -Immediate access to insurance for uninsured individual­­­s with a preexistin­­­g condition.

      -Reinsuranc­­­e for early retirees.

      -Immediate informatio­­­n that allows consumers to identify affordable coverage options.

      -Prohibitio­­­n of preexistin­­­g condition exclusions or other discrimina­­­tion based on health status.

      -Fair health insurance premiums.

      -Guaranteed availabili­­­ty and renewabili­­­ty of coverage

      -Comprehens­­­ive health insurance coverage.

      -Ending excessive waiting periods.

      -Right to maintain existing coverage.

      -Affordable choices of health benefit plans.

      -State flexibilit­­­y in operation and enforcemen­­­t of Exchanges and related

      requiremen­­­ts.

      -Federal program to assist establishm­­­ent and operation of nonprofit, member-run health insurance.

      -Community health insurance option.

      -State flexibilit­­­y to establish basic health programs for low-income individual­­­s not eligible for Medicaid.

      -Waiver for State innovation­­­.

      -Refundable tax credit providing premium assistance for coverage under a qualified health plan.

      -Reduced cost-shari­­­ng for individual­­­s enrolling in qualified health plans.

      -Credit for employee health insurance expenses of small businesses­­­.

      -Medicaid Prescripti­­­on Drug Coverage rebates.

      -special enrollment period for disabled TRICARE beneficiar­­­ies.

      -Simplifica­­­tion of annual beneficiar­­­y election periods.

      -Medicare coverage gap discount program.

      -Please, please, please! I DARE Conservatives to try and repeal heatlhcare reform and I DARE all of the sheep on this website to support the repeal. You guys give me so much entertainment. It makes my day SO much brighter to read all of your comments! Uh oh, should I expect more talking points and personal attacks???

      -When have conservatives done anything for reform while in power?

      -When have conservatives not blocked every single attempt at reforming healthcare for over 35 years now?

      -What solutions do conservatives have for over 40 million americans not being insured? (EXCLUDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THAT PATHETIC NOTION THAT PEOPLE JUST CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE, IT'S STILL 40 MILLION!)

      -WHY…….? It's TOO expensive.

      -What incentive does insurance have to offer affordable healthcare to low income americans when they get all their profit from high income earners? It's a monopoly driven market. You guys really make me laugh! The full extent of what you do is follow Heritage, Fox News and conservative media. That's it! That's all

      it ever was. I don't think a sinlge person leaving comments on this website actually knows why they support the repeal. Sheep, sheep sheep! Follow your conservative media masters! bow to their misinformation!

      the table has turned. YOU KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTHCARE!

    55. Jan Rose Cunningham says:

      Rep. Fox made a good point yesterday in the rule committee meeting concerning pointing out which bill everyone is refuting. The Senate bill HR4872 which became Public Law 111-148 was not the house bill. The bill which was returned to the House for approval went straight behind closed doors in the rules committee and then to vote. The final version was enacted March 21, 2010, whereas, the House also approved seperate legislation, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and the Senate approved this measure on March 25, 2010 (public law 111-152). See. H. Res. 1561 for information like: The problems seem to come out of the Offices of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid as to which documents were prepared for that office. For me, this looks like the hide and seek which was applied to pass laws for things like what we now have in the financial sector- credit default swaps on CFTC, synthetic CDOs which have taxpayer guarantees. Are we going to find out in ten years that we are now indenture servants? to whom?

    56. Joe, US says:

      Hopefully we can get back to good old days of denying sick children health insurance and allowing insurance companies free reign over the people's healh care options. I'd also like to see the Meidcare donut hole opened back up so tose elderly unable to afford medicine may hasten their demise.

      And by the by, the name of the piece of legislation is the Affordable Care Act, not "Obamacare". If you do, however, choose to give a moniker to the bill based on the politician who implemented it, yu may be more correct to call it "Romneycare". Alternately, you might name it after the person who proposed it over Clinton's suggestions by calling it "Dolecare".

      The truth of the matter is that this piece of legislation is quite centrist and reasonable, but various PACs funded by insurance companies would dupe people to believe otherwise.

    57. Bob Moore, Nixa, Mo says:

      Looks like political posturing to me. You have your blind spots that does not allow the facts to penetrate anything that would cause you to take a good look at what is good about the Health Care Law. Being close minded to the facts is what has got us in to most of the messes we are in, and Republican closed minds and greed looks like may keep us there for awhile. You of the Heriitage Foundation will not even acknowledge by-partisian recommendations as being valid.

    58. Bob Hardy San Antoni says:

      Only a writer from Austin, Tx could be so wrong. Harley Spoon obyiously is an academic that gets his facxts from the DNC. Harler, the DNC hasn't gotten anything correct in decades. Read the Washington Times and subscribe to Heritage might expand your knowledge and outlook!

    59. William H. Lorentz, says:

      I was pleased to read all of the comments left respecting your take on the Affordable Health Care Act. It is a tribute to your intellectual honesty and credibility that you publish comments on both sides of the issue rather than simply presenting the Foundation's conservative viewpoint and, as I have found it the case with many if not most of the ideologically based advocacy organizations, suppressing or ignoring the views which differ from the so-called "party line." If we are to have an intelligent debate on the many issues which divide us as a nation, all sides have got to be subject to rebuttal and refutation, thus for the winner to be whoever makes the best case rather than whoever has the most money to spend or the most powerful voice.

    60. John from MN says:

      If Heritage is going to argue that the "doc fix" should be included in the cost of the Affordable Care Act, then you must also include it in the cost of repeal. Repealing the ACA doesn't make the doc fix unnecessary, so you can add roughly $300 billion on top of the $230 billion the CBO says repeal will cost.

    61. Barbara Russell, Kan says:

      I live in Fly Over Country, but even I understand that you can't add 40 some Million people to the Health Care and not have a big hold in our Debt.

      We have been very poor, but we always managed to pay the M.D.'s. When I was pregnant I paid the Dr. every month and by the time I entered the Hospital we had everything paid for. NEVER, EVER did we stand with our hands out for the Gov. to pay our way.

    62. Thomas J. Devine - H says:

      I want anyone to show me A SINGLE PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES that has been refused medical attention, regardless of their ability to pay. In Houston we have two massive hospitals (Ben Taub and L.B.J.) where the medical care is free to those that have no insurance and cannot pay. I know of one person that had open heart surgury by Dr. Michael DeBackey in Ben Taub and he was not billed one penny. Show me one person that has ever been denied medical attention in a hospital and then let's solve that problem – if it actually exists.

      I wonder where our elected representatives live. They approve 99 weeks of unemployment insurance at the cost of multi-billion dollars that we do not have. Why not 3 months of unemployment insurance – then, if you are still unemployed, 66%. After 6 months (3 full – 3 at 2/3) reduce the payment to 1/3. After 9 months, 1/3 payment.

      If you get a job during one of these periods, you can continue to be paid until the end of your 3 month period. At least half of the unemployed can get work.

      I am 77 years old and I will bet anyone $500 that I can get a job in one week. It may not be the best job I have ever had but I can get a job that will give me a paycheck.

      Our elected officials must learn that they cannot continue to buy votes with public money.

      Tom Devine

    63. Bobbie says:

      The good old days. Where parents loved the children they brought into the world and knew their responsibilities to their children and provided for them. Even if it takes sacrifice. Yes! The good old days.

      A "change" would be all government run health care programs be without corruption! The country wouldn't need this 'affordable care act" as it is so deceivingly called.

    64. Larry AP TEXAS says:

      Don't know just what planet Kevin come from but i think he needs to just look around .. This debt we have isn't just Bush's fault .. remember the democratics had control the last 2 years of Bush's presidency .. BARNEY FRANK AND CRIS DODD caused the biggest part of the fall in this country .. Now he can complain all he wants to but we all know what happened …

    65. Ann Kyle, High Point says:

      Is there a place where all of the accounting for the Health Care Bill can be seen? It would be helpful to have a consumer budget statement, with explanation of what is "in" and what is "out", and what will be spent on all effects of the bill.

    66. Daniel says:

      Joe, Bob and William,

      Good comments! Finally, some common sense on this website! How DARE any of you challenge Heritage or its followers!

    67. Pingback: Must Know Headlines 1.8.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com

    68. Pingback: » Sunday Weekly Summary MySquawk

    69. xfactor says:

      "The Bush recession had begun and two wars continued to inflate deficit, not Pelosi" – Jim Richard

      obama and the Democrat Controlled 111th Congress, Supermajority HOUSE and 60 votes in the SENATE, FACTS.

      NATIONAL DEBT:

      3 JAN 2009 = $10,627,961,295,930.67

      3 JAN 2011 = $13,997,932,781,828.89

      $3,369,971,485,898.22 T

      3 JAN 2007 = $8,677,214,255,313.07

      3 JAN 2011 = $13,997,932,781,828.89

      $5,320,718,526,515.82 T in 4 years of Democrat Control

      3 JAN 1995 = $4,798,116,945,333.39

      3 JAN 2007 = $8,677,214,255,313.07

      $3,379,097,309,979.68 T in 12 years of Republican Control

      The Bush recession? What did obama or any Democrat of the 110th Congress do to prevent this?

    70. xfactor says:

      "Here’s a few of the things republican­s want to deny American’s in return for the most expensive health care on the planet" – Daniel

      Plagarizing from the HuffingtonPost?

      HOUSE passed repeal of obamacare.

      When have Conservatives had the power to reform?

      What Conservatives by NAME blocked HC anytime?

      "What solutions do conservatives have for over 40 million americans not being insured?" – Daniel

      Who was denied healthcare?

      "YOU KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTHCARE!" – Daniel

      As long as you can pay for it! Notice the spin from insurance to health care?

      I support the repeal because its an unread mess that wont do anything that it says it will do.

    71. xfactor says:

      "First week into the Republican congress and we’re back to where we were in 2001 – Repubs trying to add a trillion to the debt in lezss than one week in power. Welcome back to 2001!!!" – Kevin H, college park, md

      In revisionist History maybe, but in reality the National Debt went up just $190,824,274,110.51 Million for all of 2001.

      In FACT Republicans raised the ND $3,379,097,309,979.68 Trillion over their 12 year control of Congress from 1995-2007.

    72. Ray Ray, Texas says:

      The alternative to the governemt interfering in health care is the government not interfering in health care. We don't need the government setting prices, running social programs or otherwise doing what the private sector can do. The sky will not fall, we will not become a third world country and people will not die in droves. Hell, if they did, according to the Left, the reduction in population would be good for the environment.

    73. Jackson, Denton, TX says:

      Hey Harley: How in the heck to you BUDGET for a major war? Where do you think the USA would be right now if we had waited to think over what to do next when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Speaking German for sure…

    74. Daniel says:

      xfactor,

      93% of all legislation from 2006-2008 was republican sponsorship.

      done and done.

      you lose again.

      besides, over 65% of the current debt was added under republicans.
      http://www.treasurydirect.gov.

      opps….

    75. Daniel says:

      Wells Fargo – $138.6B

      Goldman Sachs – $129.0B

      Morgan Stanley – $121.0B

      JP Morgan Chase & Co. – $221.7B

      Citigroup – $309.7B

      UBS – $228.6B

      Merrill Lynch – $115.4B

      -those top 7 private sector losses 2008/2009 can be found at- http://bankimplode.com/blog/category/writedowns-a
      -the remaining 290 private sector losses 2007-2008 can be found at-
      http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2007/08/tally-of-fail
      -so lets do a comparrison between government regulated lenders and private sector lenders…

      -2008/2009 net losses for fannie, freddie(primary G.S.E.’s) and the remaining

      smaller 16 lenders under C.R.A.from 2007/2008/2009 side note:(12 out of 16 were not listed under or subject to C.R.A in 2007)

      -Freddie Mac: $71.7 billion

      +Fannie Mae: $130.7 billion

      +other 16 lenders: 21.9 billion

      Total losses in 2008/2009 from all government regulated lenders was

      =***$224.3 billion*** bottom line losses for Fannie and Freddie were actually ***88%*** not 90% and for the other 16 lenders an average of ***64%*** concluding an estimated average of ***76%*** in bottom line losses

      -2008/2009 losses for private companie in the private sector that had absolutlely no government regulation

      -1.264 trillion from top 7 private sector losses (listed above)

      +435.6 billion from the remaining 290 private sector losses (listed above)

      Total losses in 2008/2009 from all private sector lenders was

      =***1.699 trillion***bottom line losses for all private sector lenders were an estimated average of ***83%*** in bottom line losses

      to summarize..

      -GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED LENDING=***$224.3 BILLION*** IN LOSSES WITH A 76% AVERAGE BOTTOM LINE LOSS

      -PRIVATE SECTOR LENDING=***$1.699 TRILLION*** IN LOSSES WITH A 83% AVERAGE BOTTOM LINE LOSS

    76. Daniel says:

      -infact, the private sector lenders had 19% higher losses then the other 16 smaller lenders under government regulation(C.R.A.)

      -though, Fannie and Freddie(primary G.S.E.’s had 5% higher losses then the private sector lenders.

      -so basically if you want to compare a higher loss with fannie and freddie at 5% to the private sector having $1.444 trillion more in actual losses then go right ahead!

      -or if you want to compare percentages…please, lets!

      - government losses make up for 13.5% while private sector losses make up for about 86.5% of total losses. wow, its funny how every single number comes close to that magic 85% of total private sector control in the entire housing market share!

      -again, so since fannie and freddie had 5% higher bottom line losses then the private sector lenders that means we should only trust free market lending?…

      -and the private sector lender losses that dwarfed the government regulated lender losses accounts for…..?

      -I also assume you intentionally forgot to mention the fact that Fannie and Freddie needed regulatory reform years ago. They had full warning about the problem years ago. Who was in charge? not a single regulatory refrom bill passed from the republican/conservative led 103rd-109th congress(for 12 years) or the republican/conservative Bush administration(for 8 years) or the republican/conservative banking and finance committee chairs(for 10 years) or the republican/conservative treasury secretary(for 10 years). nothing passed, not a single bill. Which party passed specific regulatory reform for fannie and freddie in 2007…..oh yeah, Democrats in congress. hmmmmm. well, no suprise, the right-wing hates government so why would they be for regulatory reform for the largest market in the United States even after being warned about it over and over and over?

      Also, Bush and Republicans/Conservatives in congress pushing for 5.5 million more homeowners during the warnings. Or grahm-leachy which almost eliminated any and all regulation for this market. Who to blame, Republicans in congress for voting for that bill and Clinton for signing it. Wait, did I just blame someone in my own party for something! wow, I would pay money to see a republican/conservative blame someone in their own party for just one thing…I can only dream.

      -The bottom line is that Fannie and Freddie and These private companies would have been alot better with more attention and at best, some kind of regulatory reform, but thanks to republicans/conservatives in congress and the Bush Administration nothing happened. That is not opinion, that is legislative and economic history.

      Government regulated lenders are no better or worse then the private sector lenders but the total loss is much much worse for the private sector. Again, not an opinion, numerical evidence.

    77. Daniel says:

      -I think the real problem with your debate is to only single out fannie and freddie.

      #1-the other lenders under c.r.a. did better then the private sector.

      #2-fannie and freddie alone had 5% higher losses then the private sector which is not that signifigant.

      #3-the private sector losses dominate the total market share

      #4 the private sector owns 85% of the total market share

      #5 not a single regulatory reform bill was passed through congress for 12 years.

      A majority of the loans taken in by Fannie and Freddie from 2005-2009 were already bad. Horrible data systems, no regulation of any form, no oversight, nothing. So basically, loans that originated in the private sectors, outside of Fannie and Freddie, taken in by Fannie and Freddie makes it Fannie and Freddie’s fault that the bad loans originated completely outside of Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Man, I just love conservative thinking! So much spinning it makes you dizzy!

      Again, Fannie and Freddie were and are no worse then the private sector lending. Infact, total “bottom line losses” in the private sector destroy Fannie and Freddie or any other G.S.E.’s or Lenders under C.R.A.

      Any single person on this website who thinks otherwise bring evidence, not talking points.

      It’s funny that you blame Barney Frank(one finance commitee chair) and Chris Dodd(one banking commitee chair) when congess was controlled for 12 years by around 300 conservative/republicans both in the House and Senate. As if those two could get anything through Congress or even to President Bush for a signature anyways. Blaming them is impossible both by legislative, historical and numerical means. It’s one of the worst spins in history. It’s really not that hard to figure out, aside from the mountains of evidence I just presented. Think about what you are saying, you are blaming two congressman and a piece of Legislation that was passed in 1977 that makes up for less then 4% of total housing market share from 1999-2009. If CRA loans were so bad, why did they work just fine for over 30 years while regulatory reform was in place? Conservatives in congress who are against regulatory reform in everyway had legislative power, along with President Bush. Have you even read the C.R.A act of 1977? I have. Its is sitting in my desk(pdf format). Have you even read the periodic reports, federal reserve board date, F.D.I.C. reports? Have you even studied and researched housing market share, bottom line losses, etc? Did you even realize that G.S.E’s(Fannie and Freddie) make up for less then 11% of Total Market Share from 1999-2009? This (demonize and blame government for everything) logic is so drastically flawed I can’t believe people buy into it. I already admitted that both Government and Private controlled lending was at fault but one way more then the other. Only so much information can sink in, otherwise providing everything I have is a waste if people simpy choose to ignore factual evidence. Oh well…

    78. Bobbie says:

      What is your point, Daniel? The people in the private sector WORKS for what they have! Get it? They EARN it! Get it???? The money they earn is their's to do what is in THEIR PERSONAL AND BEST INTEREST! And it is the freedom of choice of the people to do business with whoever they choose. The GOVERNMENT wants to TAKE what the PRIVATE SECTOR EARNS to gain more control of them. Control of everything.

      Are you 'new" to freedom?

      You imply you support government competing with the private sector yet it doesn't matter to you government is stealing the money and America. And in a country of freedom, it is despicable for the government to compete with the freedom of the private sector! The private sector competes with each other with that freedom! Why are you so against that? Why do you promote government dependency over freedom of independence?

      NOTHING YOU WRITE PROMOTES AMERICAN PRINCIPLES!

      Why don't you believe every person alive isn't capable of their own existence under a law as simple as the civil law? And if they don't know the law, they can learn like everyone else, when they violate it. No exception to ignorance of the law! But anyway Daniel, why are you so against freedom and your personal responsibility to it?

    79. woodworker, Lee NH says:

      From Ann

      'Is there a place where all of the accounting for the Health Care Bill can be seen? It would be helpful to have a consumer budget statement, with explanation of what is “in” and what is “out”, and what will be spent on all effects of the bill.'

      Don't hold your breath. It's pretty obvious no one has even the vaguest clue what the health care might remotely cost

    80. Pingback: Congressional Twilight Zone: Repealing ObamaCare Increases The Deficit! « ObamaCare Lies

    81. Richard Heidecker, N says:

      What Hoyer and Dean need to understand is that we are UNHAPPY with them thinking they can spend our money without some accountability. It is time for them to learn that our government is supposed to be "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE". It is not to make them think they have a right to trample on the Constitution or to just waste away our money or to raise taxes anytime they please. These two need to be sent packing.

    82. Scott Carver says:

      Here's a question. How can not implementing a program that requires the creation of multiple buracracies and increases the staff requirements of multiple existing agencies, as well as causes massive unemployment among existing insurace agencies due to loss of business; increase the deficit? Wouldn't the lack of spending this huge sum of money to create this program, actually save us money? Wouldn't the tax revenue from those insurance businesses go into the general fund, thus giving the Government more money to apply to the debt?

      The logic of people who claim that Obamacare will save the government money escapes me. Everything the government does costs that American Tax Payer, (that's you and me), money. Hence, wouldn't stopping the government from doing something save money? Stop listening to the "party line" and think for yourself.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×